Jump to content

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 96

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98→Archive 100

Geographic titles with brackets to distinguish homonyms

Bkonrad,

In the past few hours, I have taken note of your initiative to change the names of many geographic articles (on the English project) by removing the parentheses in the title. It is important to give feedback on this.

These titles were chosen because of the namesakes in toponymy. For my part, the methodical verification on the other names of river or homonymous body of water is made even before the conception of the article. By deleting the parenthesis in the title, this creates an important problem because when the other homonyms have their article, it will be necessary to modify the name of the article to return to the name initially chosen.

It is wrong to state that parentheses are unnecessary; they have been added as this is useful for distinguishing homonyms. I ask you to listen to our needs and to stop erasing the parentheses. Thank you for considering this special request. VEILLG1

@Veillg1:, who besides yourself speaks of "our needs"? The domain for disambiguation on the English Wikipedia is limited to existing articles on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia article titles do not (and realistically cannot) disambiguate every existing entity that might share the name. Further, there is no project-line naming convention that supports your approach. A very few projects, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) describe specific cases where the article title may be more qualified than strictly necessary -- however, in all such cases, there should be a redirect from the simple base name to the more qualified title. All too often, the articles you create at parenthetically qualified titles have nothing at the base name. As a result, you create an impediment for other editors who as nearly EVERY OTHER ARTICLE on Wikipedia has something at the base name -- either a disambiguation page or a redirect. I would instead ask you to stop acting in willful ignorance of Wikipedia naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines. older ≠ wiser 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Bkonrad, Besides yourself, who appreciates this confusion of homonymous titles in geography? Who appreciates having to work in duplicate to give the original title to homonymous articles? In this regard, the current rule of Wikipedia (on the English project) to ignore future articles is highly criticized by Internet users. Fortunately, this rule is not applied in other languages. In good conscience, I cannot apply a poorly designed rule. It is a very bad policy as you continue to ignore the homonymous articles that will eventually be created. The English project is penalized by this bad policy on homonymous titles. And you blindly apply this bad policy without listening to the needs of users. It's a duplication of work. I ask you again to stop undoing the good work of your counterparts. Please focus on the other aspects that you are doing well elsewhere.Veillg1 01:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but if you think that the widely accepted (and thoroughly discussed) naming conventions on English Wikipedia are bad policy and differ significantly from other languages, you should discuss the policy on the policy page rather than just willfully ignore it. So far as I can tell you are the only editor with such idiosyncratic article naming and disambiguation page practices. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: You are quite right to mention that such a debate should rather take place on the policy page. It is my intention to open this discussion eventualy on English project; but I want to prepare myself to introduce it in the right way. While the blind application of a poorly designed rule must be discussed with the actors concerned. Regretly, for example, you have recently removed the words in parentheses from the following article titles: Rivière aux Rats (Saguenay), Rivière du Moulin (Sagnenay River tributary), La Petite Décharge (Saguenay River tributary), Bédard River (Saguenay River), Lac aux Écorces (Rivière aux Écorces), L'Abbé River (Métabetchouane River), Rivière à la Carpe (Métabetchouane River), Lac à la Carpe (Belle-Rivière), Berthiaume Lake (Métascouac River), Bouchette Lake (Le Domaine-du-Roy), Walsh Lake (Lac-Jacques-Cartier), Rocheuse River (Rivière du Malin), Rivière à la Chute (Sautauriski River), Lac à la Chute (Rivière à la Chute) and Lac à the Shoulder (Lac-Jacques-Cartier). I had chosen these titles well because of the other homonyms existing and several titles existing. You are invited to stop undoing the good work of others in the choice of geographic titles for Quebec. In all the previous examples, I will have to give the original titles because several homonymous articles exist or are to come. What an unnecessary waste of time for you and for me!Veillg1 03:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Veillg1:} I removed the parentheses in all those cases because at the time there was no other article with the same title making the parenthetical unnecessary. In many or even most of the cases, there was not anything at the base name. Yes, if and when other articles are created, the existing ones may need to be renamed. That is normal. This has been discussed many times before on policy and guideline pages. You are welcome to reopen the discussion, but until there is consensus to change, I suggest you try to follow the existing policies and guidelines. older ≠ wiser 09:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you are removing the parentheses from the titles just for your own enjoyment. Your parenthesis clearing initiatives are of no use to anyone. Stop basing your logic on a poorly designed rule. As a general rule, this erasure of the parenthesis causes a lot of problems because it will be necessary to replace the parenthesis eventually. In addition, these titles (without parentheses) are not harmonized with other languages. Please stop erasing the good work your colleagues are doing by designing well thought out titles.Veillg1 01:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you are creating articles without any regards to naming conventions or disambiguation guidelines. Please stop making additional work for other editors with your careless editing. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The more we discuss parentheses in the titles of geographic articles to locate the reader, the more I am convinced that the method based on the existence of homonyms (but without yet an article created on the English project of Wikipedia) is the right method. The lists of watercourses of a country (or a state) are well known (for example: list of rivers of Quebec or List of rivers of Maine or on the USGS Geographic Names Information Service. In addition, many of these geographic articles with homonymous titles exist in other languages on Wikipedia. A reviewer on WP should inquire about what already exists elsewhere, as all geographic features will eventually have their English article on WP.
With regret, you have deleted parentheses in several titles of geographic articles whose homonyms articles already exist on Wikipedia in other languages (e.g. Rivière aux Rats (Saguenay)) or the homonym topic exist in a geographical list already published on WP. We perceived that you continue to erase geographical titles of articles without checking.
You say you waste a lot of time applying your method; and you are certainly right. Your waste of time is only tributary of a bad logic in title design. It is up to you to stop wasting your time in pointless title review. Your counterparts also waste a lot of time re-displaying the content in parentheses. Open your eyes and your mind. Your initiatives to erase the content in parentheses greatly hamper the progress of the English Wikipedia project. With your method (without parenthesis for homonyms title), the reader is disoriented.
The absence of other geographic articles with a homonymous title on Wikipedia is not a valid argument to delete the parentheses. The content in parentheses in the titles of geographic articles has been specifically designed to avoid a war of publishing homonymous titles. Ideally, it is much better to create an original geographical title which will be the final version; and not temporary title. Please stop undoing the good work of others in terms of article title design.
You and I would rather benefit from working together to put an end to this war of publishing homonymous geographical titles which require parentheses. Let’s put our energies together to work on the right things.Veillg1 14:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Veillg1: A few responses
  1. It should NEVER EVER EVER be the case that you create an article with parenthetical disambiguation where there is nothing at the base name. This is fundamental and non-negotiable. For example, there should never be an article titled Fubar River (Qux) where there is nothing at Fubar River. The article should be placed at the base name or there should be a disambiguation page at the base name (and the disambiguation page should follow WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB guidelines -- meaning no redlink-only entries, every entry with exactly one navigable blue to an article or list article that supports the claimed usage).
  2. It is perfectly acceptable to add an entry to a disambiguation page that links to a list article (such as list of rivers of Quebec) where the river is mentioned in that article. Similarly, it is perfectly acceptable for a disambiguation entry to link to a river or lake article of which the other river is a tributary (and is mentioned as such in the article).
  3. Despite repeated claims about the care you take in creating such article names, you need to exercise greater care that the naming is consistent. I can't count the number of times you created an article with a name like Foo River (Place 1) where the same river is already mentioned and linked in list articles or other river or lake articles with a slightly different name like Foo River (Place 2).
  4. Not every stream or water body is notable. Simple existence of a name in a geographic database does not mean the subject should have an article in Wikipedia. That is why it we should not pre-disambiguate these terms. When and if you or someone gets around to creating an article on another river or lake with an ambiguous name, the ambiguity within Wikipedia article names can be addressed at that time. Until then, it is folly to attempt to pre-disambiguate every existing waterbody mentioned in some database or other.
  5. Where you know ambiguity exists and a list article such as list of rivers of Quebec provides some documentation of the multiple rivers, my suggestion would be to create the disambiguation page at the base name first, with red links to all of the names with parenthetical disambiguation and including blue link to a supporting article and ensuring the names are consistent, then create the articles using the names from the disambiguation page. Once the articles are created, the extra link to the supporting article can be removed from the disambiguation entry.
I'm happy to try to work with you, but you I will apply the existing guidelines regardless. If you want to try to change these guidelines, that's fine. But until then, I suggest that you work within existing guidelines and not create extra work for others to clean up the god-awful messes you often create. older ≠ wiser 15:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Offensive username

An account named Bkonrad is scam was recently created. I've made note of it at WP:Usernames for administrative attention. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Bharat → India

I would like to be apprised about the reason following reverts. [1] [2]

Bharat is most prevalent common name for India in Hindi and other Indian regional languages and there are more than sufficient sources for it. The name hereby is supposed to redirect to India while disambiguation page should comprise other references. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 03:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: Two issues with your edits. 1) Yes, Bharat is a name for India or the Indian subcontinent, as well as many other things. You offer no evidence that Bharat = India meets the criteria for primary topic. You need to establish consensus that there is a primary topic through a requested move discussion. 2) You also did a cut and paste move which is rarely appropriate on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 03:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Targeting list articles for codes

After your semi-reversions on D (disambiguation) and H (disambiguation) I wanted to get a wider pool of opinions and started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Please do add your thoughts! -- Fyrael (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, why did you remove my edit?

On urban, you got rid of my edit. Why? New3400 (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Because there is no indication anyone refers to urban dictionary as simply " urban". It is is a partial title match. older ≠ wiser 00:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

?. But it is used in entertainment, and has urban in the title. So, where should I put in, thanks for your explanation. New3400 (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Uhh

Why did you remove the ACME post I made. About the band ACME Chisasfam (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bkronad

Hi, is this anything to do with you? If not, what's the protocol for dealing with an WP:IMPERSONATOR? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Block indefinitely and revert or delete any edits. There have been many other as well as a myriad of IPs. These are all sock puppets of editor with peculiar obsession with acronyms. Some blocks by other editors suggest these are socks of a banned user Deep Nikita or something similar, though I'm not familiar with that. User:Sro23 and user:Zzuuzz have had similar user name variant harassment by the same puppet master. older ≠ wiser 10:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yup there's been a few like this recently. This one is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeepNikita, AKA the acronym weirdo. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
zzuuzz, with that investigation archived is there any current place to report new accounts of the sock? There seems to be a live one here. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
They can normally go straight to WP:AIV. If you like you can mention DeepNikita, acronym weirdo, impersonator, or just LTA and most admins will get it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Molly(rapper) disambiguation

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and started an article for this topic. I see you made an edit and would like to ask for tips to develop the topic so this doesn't happen in the future. I know about third party sources. At the time I was toggle with the format and getting use to the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teatree333 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Teatree333: The entry on the disambiguation page was too early. Write the article first, with good sources. Disambiguation page entries must always link to content. PamD 06:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_96&oldid=955374551"